Consideration Agreement

Contracts backed by a small counterparty are enforceable because courts seek consideration for a promise rather than looking at the commercial benefits of the contract. At Eastwood v Kenyon, a young girl`s guardian collected a loan to raise the girl and improve her marriage prospects. After her marriage, her husband promised to repay the loan. It was found that the guardian failed to keep the promise, because the loan to raise and educate the girl was a past reflection, since it was concluded before the husband promised to repay her. [15] A promise cannot be based on consideration that was said, made or made before the promise was made. What is said after does not count in return. For example, if X promises to reward Y for an action that Y has already performed, the performance of that action is certainly a good consideration, because the promise to be rewarded is a past reflection and is therefore not a good consideration. Another exception is that the partial debt by a third party, in return for a promise of relief of the entire amount, prevents the creditor from subsequently suing the debtor for full payment (see Welby v Drake). The court of Currie v Misa [1] declared that consideration was a “right, interest, benefit, advantage or indulgence, inconvenience, loss, liability”. Thus, consideration is a promise of something of value given by a promiser in exchange for something of value that is made by a promise; and typically, the question of value is the commodity, money or an action. The indulgence to act, such as an adult who promises not to smoke, is enforceable only if one thus renounces a legal right.

[2] [3] [4] Consideration may be anything of value (z.B. Goods, money, services or promises of any of these) that either party gives in return to support its side of the agreement. Reciprocal promises are mutual consideration. [1] If only one party offers consideration, the agreement is a “mere promise” and is not enforceable. It is consideration that has been provided in the past and not at the time of conclusion of the contract. The exchange of counterparties creates an advantage and a burden for each party that issues a contract. As a general rule, consideration in the past is not a valid consideration and has no legal value. Call us to speak to a contract lawyer on +44 20 7036 9282 or email us at contact@hallellis.co.uk. At common law, it is necessary for both parties to offer consideration before a contract can be considered binding.

The doctrine of consideration is not relevant in many jurisdictions, although contemporary commercial relations have viewed the relationship between a promise and an act as a reflection of the nature of contractual considerations. If no element of consideration is found, there will be no contract. There is an exception to this rule where there is an obligation vis-à-vis a third party. An act that occurs before making a promise of payment or granting of another benefit can sometimes be a consideration for the promise. For this to apply, three conditions must be met (Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980]): unless the debtor has provided new consideration for the promise. . . .

Copyright 2021 CommuniCLARITY · RSS Feed · Log in

·

Organic Themes